Entertainment news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Jury in Russell Brand rape trial begins considering verdicts
Developing story first seen 12 hours ago
The jury has begun considering verdicts in Russell Brand’s trial at Southwark Crown Court, where he denies rape and sexual assault charges. The case concerns allegations from six women and centres on whether the incidents were consensual; a verdict will determine whether Brand is found guilty of any of the seven charges.
The charges relate to alleged incidents between 1999 and 2009: three counts of rape, three of sexual assault and one of attempted indecent assault. Brand told the court that his past sexual behaviour was obsessive but consensual, while prosecutors said the women described him ignoring their refusals. His barrister argued that the encounters were not unlawful and that later media coverage had affected the case; the judge said the jury must reach unanimous verdicts.
- Sources
- 2
- Outlets
- 2
- Left · Centre · Right
- 0 · 1 · 0
In short
- Russell Brand denies all seven charges.
- Six women’s allegations span 1999 to 2009.
- The jury must agree unanimously.
How this story developed
- 42 minutes ago The jury has begun considering verdicts in Russell Brand’s trial at Southwark Crown Court, where he denies rape and sexual assault charges.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The prosecution’s case is that the women’s accounts describe refusals being ignored, and that the evidence supports finding that the alleged acts were non-consensual. On this view, the charges should be judged on the testimony and evidence presented at trial, with the jury’s verdicts determining whether the prosecution has proved each offence.
The case against
The defence’s case is that Brand’s past sexual behaviour, though obsessive, was consensual and that the alleged encounters were not unlawful. It argues that the jury should carefully test the evidence for each charge and consider whether the prosecution has proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, without allowing later media coverage to influence its assessment.